Letter to the Editor: 02.15.13

In Spring 2012, Ken Ham from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., spoke in Paducah, Ky., at the Heartland Baptist Church.

The end of a Christmas season and the beginning of another spring semester here at Murray State, an institution dedicated to the dissemination of information on how our world really works, is an opportune time to comment on the disastrous content of his talk.

Despite his dogmatic claims to the contrary, dinosaurs and humans have never co-habited this planet.

His utterly absurd interpretation of Biblical scripture requires a complete fabrication and thorough denial of all we know about dinosaurs, humans and other animals’ existence on this Earth. We should be outraged.

The idea that dinosaurs ever walked the Earth at the same time as humans is as utterly fanciful and completely wrong as suggesting that Santa Claus is really, really real.

We tell our children the truth as they get older because given a complete absence of evidence for a real Santa Claus, we know better. We all know it is a myth. To insist Santa existed as our children got older would be the worst sort of lie, but there’s a worse one.

Ham’s supposition that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans is not only completely lacking in evidence as much as the Santa myth, but worse, is in direct opposition to mountains of evidence to the contrary.

The denial of the fossil, geologic, biologic and genetic evidence that absolutely demonstrates there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that dinosaurs were anywhere closer than 60 million years removed from the advent of humanity is as obscene a lie as ever perpetrated on the American public.

And the state of Kentucky is giving this clown millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when real education is being cut by millions in this state to turn his lies into a water park. We should all be outraged.

No dinosaur fossils have ever been found with human remains nor damningly with any of the millions of species that did exist on Earth with humans.

There are mammals, birds and reptiles that we know for certain that coexisted with humans: cattle, horses, antelope, monkeys, pigs, etc., and we find their fossils by the millions in strata all over the world with early human and recent human remains. But not once ever, anywhere on the planet has a single dinosaur bone been found with any of those millions of species, or us.

Not once. Not anywhere, not anytime.

The coexistence of dinosaurs and humans is a complete lie. To teach otherwise goes directly against the commitment to evidence and the honest advance of human knowledge that this and every other university stands for.

And yet we have religious organizations on this campus whose leaders tell our students to ignore their biology and archaeology textbooks and professors that demonstrate the data of the completely separate evolution of humans and dinosaurs.

We should all be outraged, and some of us are.

Letter by William Zingrone, assistant professor of psychology.

51 Comments on "Letter to the Editor: 02.15.13"

  1. Prof Zingrone – why don't you challenge Ken Ham to a debate and prove how wrong he is in front of your classes and university? In a debate of this sort you could show how incredibly ridiculous it is to consider the Bible to be true. I'm sure such a debate would get a lot of attention especially with Bill Nye coming out and telling parents how irresponsible parents are for teaching their children that the Bible is true. Do it, Mr. Zingrone.

    • One has to be able to explain the origin trigger of evolution as well as morality outside of faith, which evolutionary proponents simply cannot do.

    • I've watched several debates between Creationists and Atheists and never yet witnessed an Atheist win the debate. How is it possible that these secularists cannot debate against a Book that was written two to three thousand years ago?

    • Even rational thought has to prove that nothing cannot create something. This is why evolutionary theory is faith based. Something must have triggered it. If there is no God, then how did morality originate? Interestingly, secular humanism then begins to cling to pluralistic viewpoints, grasping at other religions it doesn't really understand, hoping to undermine Bible-based reasoning. The natural sciences simply are not in a position to comment on whether or not there is purpose in nature. These questions lie beyond the scientific method, yet all of humanity seeks purpose.

    • Why should anyone debate Ham ? You might as well "debate" a flat earther oer geo centrist.

    • Steven Embree | February 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm |

      It's hardly surprising that you don't think an atheist has ever won such a debate. The debate lies, not on a stage, but in a field of evidence-based reasoning. To get on stage and be pounded by fallacious argument after fallacious argument and then claim victory when the opponent can't possibly have enough time to properly dismantle each point is dishonest and cowardly.

    • Peter Henderson – I highly recommend the book, "The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization," by Indian historian Vishal Mangalwadi. It is a ten-year researched look from an Eastern view on how the Bible's travels westward prospered humanity and where secular humanism has hijacked the credit, the areas of science originated within a biblical worldview, while eastern cultures were stifled by their own worldviews and did nothing to monopolize on the discoveries they themselves made. The origin trigger is everything and as I posted above, secular humanism and/or evolutionary theory are faith-based since they have no rational explanation for an origin trigger outside of a Creator. Also, Steven Embree's mention of fallacies & dishonesty fits right in with my mention earlier of the origin of morality also needing explanation outside of a Creator. What is true for one may not be true for another, so how does one refer to truth outside of an origin of truth? Atheism & evolution cannot explain this with a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. Jesus said the very reason he came was to testify to the truth [John 18:37].

    • I recommend reading about how the Bible, particularly the later parts were invented.

      Maccoby, Hyam
      1986 The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity San Francisco: HarperCollins/Barnes and

      Jenkins, Philip
      2010 “Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years” New York: HarperCollins

      An easily accessible book on the origins of the Hebrew Bible is

      Smith, Mark S.
      2002 “The Early History of God 2nd ed.” Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing

      An excellent study of Genesis I recommend to everyone is

      Speiser, E. A.
      1962 "Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes" New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 19, 2013 at 2:55 am |

      Gary,
      Few scholars take the works of Maccoby & Jenkins seriously. So why recommend them?? You're too funny again!!
      Look,
      any recommendation from you will be anti-christian.
      Not surprised in the least coming from one who feels so threatened by Christians:
      "…Scientifically illiterate voters are a danger to America's national security."

      Glad you're learning from Bill Nye who is not a real scientist & who also feels threatened by Christians.

    • Mr. Everette, you are obviously not well educated. However difficult it is for you to understand, you should try to learn that Christians are not creationists. There are also Hindu, Muslim, and even the occasional pagan creationists. And, it is quite amusing that you can even manage to write a sentence about "scholars." As the "kids" say, Thanks for the laffs.

    • There is no reason to debate Ham. It's been done. Ham has been soundly defeated over and over. His position is untenable and he knows it. Opposed and refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence, Ham and his ilk are forced to attack science itself by imposing invented "limitations" (like "observed" and "historical" science are his inventions) on science suggesting that the whole endeavor and the very possibility of learning about the natural world is somehow illegitimate or impossible.

      Ken Ham is not a Christian fundamentalist. The christian fundamentalist is his mark. He tells lies for money. He lies to you to make you feel better about your religion when it fails to line up with the evidence. Ham and his employees have been personally and publicly corrected countless times over the decades, confronted again and again with the demonstrable, undeniable falsehood of his statements. He *knows* what he is preaching is a lie. There is a reason they can't get published in any respectable journals and it's not a conspiracy. They can't get published because what they preach is demonstrably wrong; so wrong it can be proven as such by any reasonably competent high school science student!

  2. According to Mr Ken Ham (BSc, possibly Hons), you are wrong. Why are you wrong? Because, despite your academic record, and the fact that you hold the post of Assistant Professor, you know less than a bunch of superstitious, relatively ignorant goat herders. Despite the knowledge base you rely on, despite your obvious intellect, you know nothing about science because you (apparently) don't believe in gods, whereas as Ken Ham (BSc, possibly Hons) has an old book so his knowledge is automatically superior to hundreds of thousands of scientist like you. Don't try to tell people like Ken Ham the truth, they are too ignorant and arrogant to listen.

    • Therefore, it should be really simple to debate an ignorant person like Ken Ham that says he believes in the Bible and represents a Man that came to this earth to die for our sins some 2,000 years ago. Go ahead. I would tune in to watch that one. I have a feeling that Ken Ham would be willing to send one of his assistants if you didn't want to debate him. Hey, Dave, why do you suppose secularists quit debating these Creation Scientists? You are blowing a lot of hot air.

    • Hot air can be useful. Stale words, not so much.

    • But, where is the substance in your position? I read Ken Ham's response to the article and he easily dispatched Zingrone's claims for his position. Perhaps Zingrone somewhere answered back but I really doubt it. Substance is not created by a position, title or piece of paper. Encourage your professor to at least answer Ham's response. The response made a lot of sense to me.

    • I suffer from Parkinson's Disease, for which there is no known cure. But one day there may be. However, such a cure may be found during my lifetime, and if it is found, it will be as a result of the work of scientists, many of whom will be believers in evolution. The Ken Hams of this world can offer no such solutions, because their ancient book is devoid of solutions. Where is the substance in Ken Ham's response to Zingrone's letter? All I see is his usual parade of denials, falsehoods and ridiculous assertions.

    • Mr. Godfrey, these creationists will just let you die. They call it "god's will." We all will die eventually, but I would rather not be sick along the way.

  3. Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 2:20 pm |

    Well, we know the professor has never seen this site.
    Here's a site showing dinosaurs' tracks & humans' tracks together.
    http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorld/DinosaurTracks/Dinosauar_Tracks_Display.html

    • Utter bullshit Darryl.

      Carl Baugh's nonsense is even rejected by other young Earth creationists.

    • These "human" tracks have been repeatedly exposed as frauds. I recommend the excellent material written by Glen J. Kuban: http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

      I have also studied Carl Baugh's more recent fake "man track." My results are at http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/10/collecting-carl-baugh.html

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 9:30 pm |

      Gary. Though it may be so on these links you shared. One being yours…

      Not all creationists believe there is no proof of dinosaurs & humans coexisted.

      Studying to prove creationists wrong doesn't make your study fact.

      Be warned:
      Never say, there will never be evidence of dinosauars & humans together..

      Your friend Peter & you need to have an open mind.
      But hey only the God y'all don't believe in can open your minds.
      Hope it is soon…

    • Mr. Everette, you apparently prefer frauds to the truth. You have a better chance finding WMDs in Iraq than evidence for creationism. Frauds and phonies, Mr. Everette, frauds and phonies.

    • Darryl N Jane, Thats a joke right? The Paluxy "footprints" were debunked long ago and yes Ive known about them. They are eroded dino footprints that only someone not knowledgeable in human locomotor anatomy would assume were human. The point is if dinos lived at the same time as humans along with all the other animals that were actually around with humans, then we would find dino prints and fossils with humans and all these other animals by the thousands, millions all over the world….and we dont not once, ever. You have been horribly lied too. Maybe with good intentions, thinking that denying evolution will somehow save your soul or make you a REAL Christian somehow, but it is as absurd as saying gravity makes apples fall up out of the tree. You dont have to believe bullshit to be a Christian of some kind.

  4. Dear Writer, your claims are unscientific. Dinosaur red blood cells were found in prestine condition by Univ. of Montanta in 2006. If they were millions of yrs. old they would have fossilized. By the way look at answersingenesis.org to actually learn instead of assuming your position.

  5. "Dinosaur red blood cells were found in prestine condition by Univ. of Montanta in 2006. "

    No they weren't.

    • Peter, you sound as close-minded as the professor. You do understand that eventually we all will know the truth. I don't think I would want to be on the wrong side on that day.

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

      "In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
      Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

      What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization."

      The above:
      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

      "When Schweitzer showed Horner the slide, she recalls, "Jack said, 'Prove to me they're not red blood cells.' That was what I got my Ph.D. doing." She first ruled out contaminants and mineral structures. Then she analyzed the putative cells using a half-dozen techniques involving chemical analysis and immunology. In one test, a colleague injected rats with the dinosaur fossil extract; the rodents produced antibodies that responded to turkey and rabbit hemoglobins. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. "The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur," she wrote in a 1997 paper.

      That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, "most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, 'I just don't believe it.' She was having a hard time publishing in journals." …………..
      …..The second surprise hit in January 2004. While Schweitzer was attending a departmental taco party, Wittmeyer raced breathlessly into the room. "You aren't going to believe what happened," the lab assistant sputtered.

      Wittmeyer had been pulling the late shift, analyzing pieces from the T. rex limb. She had just soaked a fragment of medullary bone in dilute acid to remove some calcium phosphate. This was an unusual procedure to carry out in a dinosaur lab. Scientists typically assume that a fossilized dinosaur consists of rock that would entirely dissolve in acid, but Schweitzer wanted to get a closer look at the fossil's fine structure and compare it with that of modern birds. That night Wittmeyer marveled at a small section of decalcified thighbone: "When you wiggled it, it kind of floated in the breeze."

      Schweitzer and Wittmeyer pondered the meaning of the stretchy sample, feeling mystified and ecstatic. The remains seemed like soft tissue—specifically matrix, the organic part of bone, which consists primarily of collagen. Yet this seemed impossible, according to the prevailing understanding. "Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade," Schweitzer says. "If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?"

      Next Schweitzer examined a piece of the dinosaur's cortical bone. "We stuck the bone in the same kind of solution," she says. "The bone mineral dissolved away, and it left these transparent blood vessels. I took one look, and I just said: 'Uh-uh. This isn't happening. This is just not happening.' " She started applying the same treatment to bone fragments from another dinosaur that she had acquired for her dissertation. "Sure enough," she says, "vessels all over the place."

      Less than a month later, while Schweitzer was still collecting data on the soft tissue, came a third score. Wittmeyer walked into the lab looking anxious. "I think maybe some of our stuff's gotten contaminated, because I see these things floating around, and they look like bugs," she said. Worried that she would lose her dinosaur blood vessels before she could publish an article about them, Schweitzer rushed to rescue the sample. What she found startled her. Through the microscope she could see what looked like perfectly formed osteocytes, the cells inside bone…..
      ……she says. "I think it's stupid to say, 'You're never going to get DNA out of dinosaur bone, you're never going to get proteins out of dinosaur bone, you're never going to do this, you're never going to do that.' As a scientist, I don't think you should ever use the word never."

      The above from:
      http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

      Well… wonder why she had such a hard time publishing this???

    • Michael Roberts | February 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm |

      Roy, I feel for all the leading Creationists on that day , when Jesus asks them,"Why did you lie about my Creation?" Sadly that is what the leading creationists have been doing since Morris wrote the Genesis Flood, and they have duped many Christians.

    • What truth Roy ?

      Why do you accept the structure of the benzene ring or the periodic table ?

    • Darryl N Jane Everette: She still didn't find "red blood cells".. Fragments of hemoglobin particles are not "red blood cells" nor does it prove dinosaurs lived in the recent past alongside humans.

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 6:36 pm |

      Peter: True, hemoglobin paticles aren't red blood cells.
      But red blood cells can only pick up & carry oxygen around b/c they contain a protein within them called hemoglobin

      Nor does her finding prove dinosaurs didn't live alongside humans.

      Remember what Schweitzer said?
      "I think it's stupid to say, 'You're never going to get DNA out of dinosaur bone, you're never going to get proteins out of dinosaur bone, you're never going to do this, you're never going to do that.' As a scientist, I don't think you should ever use the word never."

      With that in mind–
      Still wondering why she had such a hard time publishing this???

    • Darryl N Jane Everette I have read every article Mary Schweitzer has written for the last 15 years. I have also written about how creationists have lied about her research for the last 15 years. I suggest starting with, "Dino-blood and the Young Earth" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 9:31 pm |

      Like your friend Peter,
      You are too funny!!!!

    • Peter Henderson has the AIG people pegged! Their statement of faith shows who's really close-minded.

  6. " By the way look at answersingenesis.org to actually learn instead of assuming your position."

    No, you wont.

    If you want to learn science read some science books or, better still, do dome real science courses from any acrcredited college or university.

    You'll learn nothing from Answers in Genesis.

    • Yes, please study the once very famous and very popular college science book, Biochemical Predestination. That will tell you how science has figured out how life originating in the first place.

    • Learn some biology Roy, and in particulay geology. You'll then understand why Ham's nonense is rejected by 99.9999% of all biologists and geologists everywhere.

    • Roy Wilson Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed a few thousand years ago.

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

      Peter,
      How much have you learn from secularists????

      http://youtu.be/gHbYJfwFgOU

      Bill Nye–Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country's future, he added, saying,

      "We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future."

      "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in (evolution) it holds everybody back, really,"

      WOW!!! he said
      "in another couple of centuries..that worldview, I'm sure will be,.. just won't exist..there's no evidence for it…so"

      What is he saying????? That as of now we have several scientifically illiterate voters & taxpayers who are holding everybody back. At least that worldview won't exist centuries from now.

      Are we holding you back??? If we are, so sorry.

      Here's what God think of people such as Mr. Nye & the late Mr. Sagan.
      Psalm 14
      "Folly of the Godless"

      The fool has said in his heart,
      “There is no God.”
      They are corrupt,
      They have done abominable works,……

    • You can learn a lot from AiG. You can learn that they are not interested in intellectual debate. You can learn that adults can think like seven-year olds. You can learn about a whole fantasy world that bears no relationship to the real world. Finally, you can learn how to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala" when somebody presents you with the truth.

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm |

      Dave, you are truly a funny guy!!!

      "lalalala" when somesbody presents you with the truth"

      The things of God is fantastically complicated to those like Mr. Nye & the late Mr. Sagan.
      But an intelligent person such as a good atheist republican; you should know that it is truly fantastically complicated….

      1 Corinthians 2:13-15
      These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

      You're too funny!!!!

    • Mr. Everette, Scientifically illiterate voters are a danger to America's national security.

    • Me funny? That Corinthians quote is the height of comedy. Cracks me up every time.

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 18, 2013 at 10:09 pm |

      Gary & Dave, you're both crack us up.
      But we have to love the fools!!!

      Oh thanks, Laughter's good for the heart 🙂 too too funny!!

    • How much have you learn from secularists????

      When it comes to science, I ignore "secularists", so no, I've learned nothing from "secularists".

    • Darryl N Jane Everette | February 19, 2013 at 12:39 am |

      Peter…yep you're definitely a funny guy!!! Yep you ignore "secularists" b/c you have buddies like Gary & Dave. Too funny!!!

    • Then maybe you'll appreciate this one, Darryl N Jane. One cannibal says to the other "does this clown taste funny to you?"

  7. Mr. Zingrone is right. Ham's reaction to his letter is both wrong and amusing! Ham says that ".
    For instance, yes of course we can say “There are mammals, birds and reptiles that we know for certain that coexisted with humans: cattle, horses, antelope, monkeys, pigs, etc., and we find their fossils by the millions in strata all over the world with early human and recent human remains”—because we live with these same animals today in this present world!"

    Problem is: That's not what Zingrone was referring to. He was talking about the fossil record showing no evidence of human-dinosaur co-habitation!

    By the way, Roy Wilson? You do know that in VERBAL debates there is no time for each side to check the other's claims and to cross-examine the other side later, right? That's why creationists always insist on VERBAL debates as opposed to written ones. Or peer-review, or courts of law where as in the Dover case, they consistently get creamed.

Comments are closed.